Is EA Really That Evil?

[jklinders]

If it ever becomes mandatory to buy their products given their current business model then I will accept that the term evil might apply to them. until then I will simply apply the terms shortsighted and greedy as they are far more appropriate.

I really don't like words like evil being watered down for the benefit of something as trivial as video game publishing.

 

[Lightknight]

It's not that they're evil, perse. It's that they would do absolutely anything for money. I think the word is greedy. That's not inherently evil.

 

[Rariow]

They're not really "evil" as much as "incompetent". The reason they draw so much ire is because they just make dumb, scared move one after another. The SimCity incident: "Oh, hey, people won't mind if we sell them a game that doesn't work, and we get benefit since pirates won't pirate", failing to realize that, yes, people will mind, and yes, pirates will still pirate. The Dragon Age 2 thing: "Oh, hey, making BioWare rush a game will allow us to bring in money faster and making a casual RPG will allow us to reach a larger audience", and they failed to realize that BioWare games are good when they have their time to make them and said larger audience doesn't care about RPGs anyway, whilst the audience you had just gets angry. That doesn't change the fact that they're doing really shitty things like ruining franchises or screwing people over, but they're not doing it to be assholes, they're doing it because they don't realize it'll hurt them in the long run.

As Shamus Young has often said, when it comes to companies never attribute to malice what can be reasonably explained by incompetence.

 

[jklinders]

If it ever becomes mandatory to buy their products given their current business model then I will accept that the term evil might apply to them. until then I will simply apply the terms shortsighted and greedy as they are far more appropriate.

I really don't like words like evil being watered down for the benefit of something as trivial as video game publishing.

It's this attitude that game companies hide behind to get away with treating their customers like shit.As long as people like you continue to treat the gaming industry as something trivial and not as something that needs to be held to the same standards as every other industry the companies like EA/Capcom,Activision etc; are given a free pass to treat people like crap.

Yes yes yes, I'm bending over and taking it because I don't recognize gaming as a necessity. Before I'm accused of hyperbole that is exactly what your interpretation of my post suggests you think of me. I vote with my wallet. Maybe if more people did the same EA would be no more or change their ways.

My stance on this issue has remained unchanged, don't like what they are doing, DON"T GIVE THEM MONEY. As long as mindless zombies PAY them to rip them off they will continue to do so.

I don't give the a free pass. I don't give them anything until they change their ways. Food for thought.

 

[gibboss28]

Not evil...just complete pricks. You don't have to look that far into EAs history to see this.

 

[Lightknight]

It's not that they're evil, perse. It's that they would do absolutely anything for money. I think the word is greedy. That's not inherently evil.

When you are greedy to the point of being assholes to your customers or anyone who criticizes you then it's no surprise some people think your company is run by villians.

I think EA would prefer "super villains".

But no, that's not evil. Evil is hiring slaves to produce your products. It's not being a shitty company that pushes their customers to not want to buy from them.

Evil has more weight to it than that. EA is just a bad company that only cares about the bottom line. Those types of companies are a dime a dozen. At least EA isn't breaking the law (as far as we know) like so many other companies are to improve that bottom line.

What's more is that EA's more recent backtracking of actions isn't because they're being less greedy. It's that they've learned that being so overtly greedy impacts their bottom line and so they're pulling back those actions which make it the most obvious.

Non-customer friendly/Greedy =/= evil.

 

[F'Angus]

well seeing how they released the exact same fifa on vita two years in a row, an I don' t mean th same like they normally do with slight gameplay tweaks, I mean the exact same gameplay and menues, all they updated was the teams and charged £40 for it...which is expensive for vita.

 

[Something Amyss]

EA popularised almost everything I dislike in gaming. Is that evil? No. But it's still a bad thing.

I will support good things from EA when I see them and I will complain about bad things when I see them. Unfortunately, even when they try to improve their image, they do it in a Monty Burns fashion.

 

[blank0000]

My reaction is "No...no they are not...chill out internet"

It's not that EA as a company hasn't caused bad things to happen. I see EA as a large company with a lot of people. I don't want to hold a grudge against a group of hard working people I've never met who really don't have any control over company decisions.

EA as a company should be accountable for what they do, but making them a punching bag for everything bad that happens in the game industry seems a bit silly. There are so many OTHER THINGS leading to chaos, it would be a shame to not distribute the blame more accurately =D

 

[Neonsilver]

As others already pointed out, EA is probably not evil. They just seem to be incompetent to an extreme degree.

Honestly, Valve is probably the true evil company, nurturing a loyal fanbase, depriving them from a game they desperately want. Wait a few years and fans will gladly go to war to secure world domination for Valve, if it means Half Life 3 gets released.

 

[LaSelaMelvins]

Everyone here says they are not evil but instead acerbically greedy, so either everyone here is wrong or the Internet is drunk. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
I've also seen much talk of Activision and Capcom being rivals to EA in terms of sheer nutbusting incompetence, in some form or another. What I'm getting from this is that EA is a larger company than either Activision or Capcom if they have the money to buy out studios but I can't be sure without returning to observe stock portfolios. It also begs the question "but what if EA buys Activision? Would the modern video gaming industry collapse in on itself?"

 

[jklinders]

It's not that they're evil, perse. It's that they would do absolutely anything for money. I think the word is greedy. That's not inherently evil.

When you are greedy to the point of being assholes to your customers or anyone who criticizes you then it's no surprise some people think your company is run by villians.

I think EA would prefer "super villains".

But no, that's not evil. Evil is hiring slaves to produce your products. It's not being a shitty company that pushes their customers to not want to buy from them.

Evil has more weight to it than that. EA is just a bad company that only cares about the bottom line. Those types of companies are a dime a dozen. At least EA isn't breaking the law (as far as we know) like so many other companies are to improve that bottom line.

What's more is that EA's more recent backtracking of actions isn't because they're being less greedy. It's that they've learned that being so overtly greedy impacts their bottom line and so they're pulling back those actions which make it the most obvious.

Non-customer friendly/Greedy =/= evil.

Actually EA is guilty of fraud and false advertising which are major crimes in the business world,they also were taken to court for making spyware in Europe when Origin was first implemented.

As for hiring people to act as slaves....EA has been guilty of overworking their employees in the past and several development teams had left the company because of it,they force their remaining teams to push out games that aren't ready or put in features that are designed to gouge money out of their customers and when the eventual backlash happens EA forces the game dev to take the fall for them.

Not to mention they have a monopoly on all sports games and currently the owners of the Star Wars IP so that's another monopoly for them.

If false advertising really was a major crime in the business world then there are no businesses that are not guilty. How many "Best Pizzas in New York" are there?

As long as a dev team or it's employees have freedom to leave and are being paid for their work then it's not slavery. Being overworked=/=being enslaved. Fuck, I'm overworked as are most of my co-workers but I don't call myself a slave. Practically everyone who has a job these days has more work than time. Let's just call all employers slavers shall we?

I've seen non EA sports games. They have the distinction of sucking even more than the recycled garbage EA puts out year after year. But their existence puts the lie to the whole monopoly argument. MLB 13 the Show immediately comes to mind. I don't really get why anyone would buy the same title with a few names swapped out year after year, but this kind of consumer stupidity is begging to be exploited.

Lucasarts previously had the license for all things Star Wars so I guess that was horrible too? Not that I am happy that EA owns the rights now but there is hardly anything wrong with owning the license to use IP. I'm really not opening up the can of worms that is IP but they are operating in a legitimate legal framework here. It needs an update but I will not be the one to suggest we throw the rules out without a better idea ready to take over.

 

[jklinders]

It's not that they're evil, perse. It's that they would do absolutely anything for money. I think the word is greedy. That's not inherently evil.

When you are greedy to the point of being assholes to your customers or anyone who criticizes you then it's no surprise some people think your company is run by villians.

I think EA would prefer "super villains".

But no, that's not evil. Evil is hiring slaves to produce your products. It's not being a shitty company that pushes their customers to not want to buy from them.

Evil has more weight to it than that. EA is just a bad company that only cares about the bottom line. Those types of companies are a dime a dozen. At least EA isn't breaking the law (as far as we know) like so many other companies are to improve that bottom line.

What's more is that EA's more recent backtracking of actions isn't because they're being less greedy. It's that they've learned that being so overtly greedy impacts their bottom line and so they're pulling back those actions which make it the most obvious.

Non-customer friendly/Greedy =/= evil.

Actually EA is guilty of fraud and false advertising which are major crimes in the business world,they also were taken to court for making spyware in Europe when Origin was first implemented.

As for hiring people to act as slaves....EA has been guilty of overworking their employees in the past and several development teams had left the company because of it,they force their remaining teams to push out games that aren't ready or put in features that are designed to gouge money out of their customers and when the eventual backlash happens EA forces the game dev to take the fall for them.

Not to mention they have a monopoly on all sports games and currently the owners of the Star Wars IP so that's another monopoly for them.

If false advertising really was a major crime in the business world then there are no businesses that are not guilty. How many "Best Pizzas in New York" are there?

As long as a dev team or it's employees have freedom to leave and are being paid for their work then it's not slavery. Being overworked=/=being enslaved. Fuck, I'm overworked as are most of my co-workers but I don't call myself a slave. Practically everyone who has a job these days has more work than time. Let's just call all employers slavers shall we?

I've seen non EA sports games. They have the distinction of sucking even more than the recycled garbage EA puts out year after year. But their existence puts the lie to the whole monopoly argument. MLB 13 the Show immediately comes to mind. I don't really get why anyone would buy the same title with a few names swapped out year after year, but this kind of consumer stupidity is begging to be exploited.

Lucasarts previously had the license for all things Star Wars so I guess that was horrible too? Not that I am happy that EA owns the rights now but there is hardly anything wrong with owning the license to use IP. I'm really not opening up the can of worms that is IP but they are operating in a legitimate legal framework here. It needs an update but I will not be the one to suggest we throw the rules out without a better idea ready to take over.

Last time I checked hyped up ads don't equal false advertising,however things like lying about your product being functional when it really isn't is false advertising which is punishable by use of severe fines and lawsuits.

Also every single football game that licensed by the NFL is also under EA's control,and the difference between LucasArts and EA is Gearge Lucas is the creator of the Star Wars IP and has the right to all trademarks.You can try to make excuses all you want but in terms of anti consumer behaviour EA is one of the worst culprits and before their recent attempts at goodwill were openly proud of it.

Who's making excuses? Not me. You are making an argument that EA is evil. You are arguing that those who disagree with that are part of the problem. But you cannot come up with a compelling argument that your opinion is correct in the face of opposition to that opinion.
e·vil (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic


I took the liberty of italicizing for the one part of that definition that might apply. But however as morals are so subjective from person to person, you and I could chase each other's tails on the argument for an eternity to no good end. So why don't we just agree to disagree and get on with each other's days?

 

[Madman123456]

I would hesitate to use the word "evil" as i do not think that there is an entity behind EA with actual malevolent thoughts.
However, like every other publicly traded company they can be rather "greedy" but they manage to seem to be more greedy then all the rest of them, to the point where everything they release contains something that screws the customer over in some way.

I can merely warn away those potential customers from anything bearing the EA logo.
You shouldn't install the "origin" software which, due to its hidden scans and reports back to the company i will declare 'malware'.
You can't play the games from EA without that software but i would regard that as a layer of protection from those putrid games.
I was going to rant about Microtransactions in full price games and day one dlcs and the like but i remembered that i once regarded those things as a fair way of monetizing; until EA took the concepts and ruined them for everyone.
Day one DLCs would be a good thing for the people of the company to do when the game is almost done. Slap together some optional content for cheap and sell it for cheap.
EA began cutting out features from full games to use and sell as DLC and nowadays customers wont trust any DLC.

If anything goes finds itself in EA's grasp, it is going down the drain.
I still remember when EA took over westwood and then we got the "Yuri's Revenge" expansion for "Red Alert 2" with the worst copy protection software at the time.
C&C took quite the beating from EA. "Generals" was barely able to manage anything other then 2 player rush matches. Wanna build giant bases and run each other over with 30 tanks? Game will explode.
Single player mode worked fine though...
C&C 3 was nearly impossible in the single player mode because in patches the balance was screwed over, turrets wouldn't do crap against enemy armor. First one who can scrape a few tanks together wins.
Unfortunately, in single player the enemy already has a base.
I couldn't get multiplayer to run and that was pretty much it for me. Red Alert 3 went right past me and so did C&C 4, which was terrible apparently.
How EA managed to drive the most successful RTS franchise against a wall is something that still baffles me to this day.


Hey, how about some "Sim City"? Remember that? Go buy Sim City 4 on steam. It's cheaper (that much i can't blame EA for), the maps are larger, the resources are not geared towards forcing you to trade with neighboring cities built by other players and if you do want to play with others you can do so without the server crashing. And the first bit of DLC wasn't some overpowered advertisement bullshit.
The newest Sim city does have one advantage over its predecessor:
It has a poop map.



EA likes to advertise their "mature" games towards younger audiences ("Your mom is going to hate this game!" for 'Dante's Inferno') and that is something that really boggles my mind.
EA props videogames up as something that "grown-ups" wont like, which is apparently the most important marketing point.
So it's a game for a younger audience? Oh sure, portrait videogames as some gruesome violent media to be played by minors, who would find it cool that their moms wont like it.
Add to that their insistence to make games for the broadest audience possible. Have intellectual property and turn it into something that everyone has already played in some way or another. You might never have seen the "dead space" games but you have.

EA is actively working to damage their own market. The greatest danger to EA's continued existence is EA.

There have been so many business decisions by so many companies that where shortsighted but a company working to damage their own market is pretty rare, which might be used as a defense for the internet rage that lead to EA being voted the "worst company of america" two years in a row. They beat the Bank of America and Wallmart.

If EA where as big as wallmart or the bank of america i could actually see them doing worse.